Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.

The program was started becasue private insurers wouldn't cover, or charged to much money for seniors to be covered under a private sector plan. This created a public sector need.

Since private insurance now has to cover, despite preexisting conditions (ie, you're old), and they are limited on what they can charge under Obamacare, why do we still have medicare at all?

I think the program should be abolished, perhaps continue it at a reduced rate gradually until extinction, and folks under 40 years old like myself will have to continue to buy private insurance through our old age. Just pay us back the money we've paid into the system already. Or, set it aside like social security so that we can tap that pool of money to buy our own private insurance at whatever age we decide to retire.

The money you paid in is GONE.
The money your parents paid in to SS is GONE. There is no pool of money.

The federal government's spending is essentially like a big insurance company with an army. The big five are: Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, Defense and interest on the debt. If one is talking about trying to make meaningful debt reductions by cutting spending in other areas, one doesn't know what one is talking about.

Corporate subsidies and tax breaks.Welfare Statistics: Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Than..
Excerpt: "About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies. So, the government spent 50% more on corporate welfare than it did on food stamps and housing assistance in 2006".
Excerpt (this could come from Fox): "There's so much suffering in the world. It can all get pretty overwhelming sometimes. Consider for a moment the sorrow in the eyes of a CEO who's just found out that his end-of-year bonus is only going to be a paltry $2.3 million".

As Limbaugh said - the wealthy (including himself) are suffering under Obama's (first term) economy.
Does the boy look like he is missing a lot of meals?

Low capital gains taxes and loopholes.How Buffett Saves Billions On His Tax Return - Forbes
Excerpt: "Buffett and Bill Gates asked other billionaires to sign their pledge to donate half their net worth to charity in similar fashion. Others are not as wealthy as Buffett, so figure 50 billionairesí times $5 billion of tax savings equals $250 billion of taxes diverted from the IRS and states. Thatís a meaningful amount of taxes and it should be considered for repeal in pending discussions for tax reform".

* Republicans have always preached about balancing the budget - during democratic presidencies.
* What "balancing" did they do 2000-2008 at the times they had control?
* During repub administrations did we ever hear any complaints about spending or the unbalanced budget? [crickets]
* Cheney said "deficits don't matter".
* They do not care about balancing the budget, and if in power, they will again spend like crazy, with not a word about "balance".

And this is why we have terms like RINO and Establishment Republicans, to differentiate them from conservatives. This is why Republicans have been receiving primary challenges at increased rates.

I have no problem agreeing with the points you made. I agree there are a lot of Republicans out there who are too much like you. And I oppose their hypocrisy, abandonment of the constitution, and fiscal irresponsiblity the same way as I oppose the same qualities in you.

I am in favor of cutting the budget. I am in favor of both reducing spending gradually and increasing some taxes gradually.

What makes me think the GOP is full of nutcases is when I hear people like Marco Rubio constantly holler about "balancing the budget". Balancing the budget, right now, would require a combination of a trillion dollars in budget cuts and tax hikes. If that were done immediately, 99 out of 100 economists will tell you a simple truth. It will throw this country back into the recession that we are struggling to climb out of. In fact, unemployment would probably increase to 15% according to the index its currently measured on.

Cutting all that government spending would greatly reduce demand for goods and services and the private sector is in no shape to make up what government would instantly stop purchasing. The only net result that could flow from that would be record numbers of firms going out of business and a record number of unemployment claims.

I don't dispute the essential truth that--over time--spending has to be cut and that borrowing by government is a problem. But it can't be done over night and anyone who think it can be without a near catastrophic effect on the economy, doesn't know what he/she is talking about.

Rubio only shows his ignorance and utter partisanship by saying the President ought to do this. I wouldn't vote for this clown to be dogcatcher.

Rubio a major joke, now making an early play to be the eventual GOP nominee for the next presidential election. The GOP only screams about "balanced budgets" when a Democrat is in the White House. While Dubya was turning a SURPLUS in a RECORD DEFICIT, the Regressives were sitting around in warmongering bliss, picking their noses, and ignoring the black hole of military spending.

Pubs are incredibly pathetic, especially on matters concerning budgets and the economy. They know nothing about either, except to navigate these areas to benefit only the rich.

Rubio a major joke, now making an early play to be the eventual GOP nominee for the next presidential election. The GOP only screams about "balanced budgets" when a Democrat is in the White House. While Dubya was turning a SURPLUS in a RECORD DEFICIT, the Regressives were sitting around in warmongering bliss, picking their noses, and ignoring the black hole of military spending.

Pubs are incredibly pathetic, especially on matters concerning budgets and the economy. They know nothing about either, except to navigate these areas to benefit only the rich.

I heard the best explanation of what the government is calling a balanced budget yesterday by a reporter. I might get the name of the reporter wrong but his example was right on target.

If you say you are going to lose weight and stop eating 1/3 of what you eat but you are still eating 200 calories a day more than you use, you are not on a diet and you will gain rather than lose weight.

Our government is talking about cutting spending but they are not cutting it enough to make it possible to stop borrowing money; therefore we are still going broke.

And I don't care what the result is for the private sector. We cannot continue on this downward spiral. Spending has to be cut and taxes have to go up. I suggest that everyone in the United States should have to pay some taxes then everybody would understand there is a problem that needs to be solved.

I suggest closing the borders, deport all that are not citizens, put taxes on products coming into this country that were not made here, and no more credit card type welfare at the checkout counter. Have government distribution centers for those that need food. No more money sent to other countries that is being paid for by our taxpayers. We can only afford to pay for our own citizens. Other countries need to adjust their own affairs.

And on the OP question, I will go back to the statement, "You can't fix stupid." If you have to ask why the Republicans talk about a balanced budget then you are too stupid to understand any explanation as to why they mention it. Basically it is because we know we will be the ones that in the end have to pay for the interest and the debt and we don't want it getting so high it destroys the country.

Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.